Kobold

Xethik's page

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. 1,823 posts. 10 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist.


1 to 50 of 434 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's important to practice your Alarming Disappearances before combat to keep your allies from getting too frightened. (Seems like it should be enemy only, easy enough to adjudicate)


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Huzzah!


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Do not open:
OGL Explosive Runes!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Darkened Forest Form was a spell that initially underwhelmed before I warmed up to the sheer versatility it had on a class that specializes in the very idea of flexibility. My only standing issue is that it feels underwhelming once you cease gaining heightened benefits, namely at rank 8, 9, and 10. Up until then it seems like a great focus spell option for any animist that has it primarily attuned.

It feels like adding Monstrosity form mostly fits the theme while patching rank 8 and 9 - does it make sense to anyone else to add those as options? Or do we know of any battle form spell changes that might make these heightenings unnecessary?

I could see a high level feat adding the spell to the options as well, especially if it was wandering (I believe the other two feats related to the focus spell are not).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Syndosis wrote:

A question came up this week in the pathfinder 2e game that I play in. We have a paladin who used retributive strike (https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=5) in response to an attack from an Ice Yai that dealt bludgeoning and cold damage. The question immediately popped up on how the trigger for retributive strike actually works. The trigger specifies that "An enemy damages your ally, and both are within 15 feet of you." and this makes sense so that retributive strike can be used for things besides just attacks. However, because it specifies "An enemy damages your ally", do we consider the bludgeoning and cold damage to be both apart of that same trigger? In that scenario, we would have 15 damage resistance to both the bludgeoning and cold damage. Or do you have to respond to either the bludgeoning or the cold damage, effectively only helping resist one of them?

Now, to be clear, I want to state that our GM is fine with either interpretation of the rule, he just wants it to be consistent. The issue is that I have been trying to find an official ruling on how exactly this is supposed to work. This has apparently been ruled by Paizo on multiple streams to provide the damage resistance to each type of damage. Does anyone have a link to one of Paizo's streams where this occurred?

Resistance to all damage applies to each damage type individually.

Resistance rules wrote:
It’s possible to have resistance to all damage. When an effect deals damage of multiple types and you have resistance to all damage, apply the resistance to each type of damage separately. If an attack would deal 7 slashing damage and 4 fire damage, resistance 5 to all damage would reduce the slashing damage to 2 and negate the fire damage entirely.

The bludgeoning and cold would be from the same instance, and each would be reduced.

Yes, it is very strong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Unseen Shadow is one of my favorite sidebar characters.
10/10 would die in combat with it.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Huzzah!

Yoon is looking great as always - love the embracing of each element despite staying true to her fire.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In the product thread for Stolen Fates 3, people mentioned it is in the individual chapter version.

You should email customer service about PDF issues like this - that is the usual recommendation to get it resolved.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dragonhearthx wrote:
So a dex paladin?

The Bulwark Plate trait on some of the heavy armors should be sufficient for going with a Strength build, but I would still keep your Wis high despite being a Cha secondary class.

If you want to be the one soaking damage, going with the Shield feats can help keep yourself alive but a reach weapon and standing behind allies to more reliably use your champion reaction is very strong for damage mitigation as well. A Paladin with a reach weapon (I like the Long Hammer for the critical specialization effect) and Ranged Reprisal can give you a large range of retaliation. Divine Grace can improve your saving throws reliably as well to ensure you are pretty much always making use of your reaction.

Dex Paladin (range or finesse) works well, too. Your AC might be a single value lower but you can more reliably succeed on Dex saves and have better Stealth.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think the Good champion reactions will be quite impactful in a high lethality game. They add a very high amount of durability to your party - and you can be plenty tanky yourself with good AC scaling and by focusing on your save stats.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

AP 200 will be about planning PaizoCon 24. A very meta story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Romão98 wrote:
Can't wait to see more on the remaster panel! One of the questions I'm going to ask is related to lifting heavy objects. I always thought it depended on the bulk rules, but here and there I see the game suggesting this would be a check, but I don't find anything about it in the core rulebook.

That text exists on the Belt of Giant Strength. This feels like a soft combination of that belt and the Titan's Grasp apex gloves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Huzzah! New Apex!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Huzzah!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
pixierose wrote:

If the primal dragons are based on the new planes, I would love to see a wood/plant dragon with a pollen breath attack.

And on the Diabolic Dragon, Idk if the text is so small that we can't read or if I am just having trouble being able to read it.

Text is a bit small, yeah.

An adamantine dragon paired with a plant one could be very cool. The Zomok is very interesting and I could see that expanding into a full core dragon type, even.
Definitely fits the Primal theme and making the dragons more connected to the magic traditions.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Funny that the tag in the center of the image says "Arcane Dragon" when it is a Divine one, but seems like a copy paste error from a previous design doc?

Either way, looks great. Is there a higher res version of the concept art? Would love to be able to zoom in and get the details clearly.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Xethik wrote:
Alaznist was also dealt with prior to Pathfinder 2E despite appearing on the GMG 2e cover, so I'm guessing it will be much the same in this case.
Probably. I may just have some residual saltyness that the writers raised some actual redemption potential with Xanderghul, only to canonically roast his soul upon a spit in the last volume, while Belimarius, who by her attitude alone is much more likely to get killed by player characters, gets to canonically run Edasseril.
Or maybe the plans I've got for Xanderghul kinda needed things to happen they way they did in "Return of the Runelords," and the choices we made in canonizing that Adventure Path are intentional and, maybe, just maybe, setting up something for the future?

That's exactly what a nefarious T-rex pretending to be a human would say!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:
Xethik wrote:
Alaznist was also dealt with prior to Pathfinder 2E despite appearing on the GMG 2e cover, so I'm guessing it will be much the same in this case.
Probably. I may just have some residual saltyness that the writers raised some actual redemption potential with Xanderghul, only to canonically roast his soul upon a spit in the last volume, while Belimarius, who by her attitude alone is much more likely to get killed by player characters, gets to canonically run Edasseril.

In my home game I attempted to rectify this by making Xanderghul much, much more insidious and actively evil. But I do agree that he could have been developed further and pose a greater threat - or seen a chance at redemption.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
magnuskn wrote:

Oh, that's Xanderghul on the GM cover. I wonder if that means he might be coming back... he kinda got screwed over in Return of the Runelords, IMO. :p

James Jacobs wrote:
For those also wondering, yes, that's Runelord Xanderghul on the mirage dragon for the GM Core. We've put a runelord and their dragon buddy on the previous two GM books, after all.
Dang, ninja'ed by James himself.

Alaznist was also dealt with prior to Pathfinder 2E despite appearing on the GMG 2e cover, so I'm guessing it will be much the same in this case.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Looks like Alchemist, Barbarian, Monk, and Sorcerer are being moved out of "Core 1" and into "Core 2".
EDIT: And Champion, good call Archpaladin Zousha.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Spoiler:
BOOM!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Long Hammer is another exciting option similar to the Bec de Corbin. It does not have the shove trait, but it does have trip as a similar alternative. The trait that intrigues me with the long hammer though is brace. Brace gives you a damage bonus on all Strikes with the hammer after readying an action to Strike with it. This damage bonus applies regardless of if you use the readied Strike or not. While this won't give a ton of value early on, I am intrigued by using it once you've picked up the champion feat Divine Reflexes, which gives you another reaction each round that can only be used for your champion reaction. That means if you find yourself in an advantageous position and want to force melee enemies to approach you, you can spend two actions to Ready an action to Strike a creature entering your reach. If a creature moves up, you can use your readied actions to swing at them once with your usual reaction and then a second time with Retributive Strike if they damage an ally in range, with both of these attacks gaining bonus damage from Brace.

It might be a rare circumstance that you want to make use of the brace trait, but I find it a compelling tactical idea. Oh and on top of that, I personally prefer the hammer critical specialization over the polearm, but the polearms maneuvering on critical hits can be very powerful when playing a defender character.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Perhaps talk with your GM about coming back as one of the fallen previous characters that you felt had a story still to tell - but with an undead archetype. Lean into a revenge aspect if possible!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
pixierose wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
pixierose wrote:
Gisher wrote:
pixierose wrote:
I got my copy, and I have to say the two new companion options were a very pleasant surprise.
I didn't realize those would be in there. Any familiar options?

There is one new familiar ability.

The new companion options are more assistive companions like the Legchair. That are like super super cool, people who like oozes will be happy, and druids have a really cool thematic choice as well.

Hello, it is I, a person who likes oozes. I would be curious to know why I should be happy.
There is an Ooze "animal companion" it is an assistive companion, it has the mount feature, and has motion sense. It is super cool. Sadly no art of it.

There are some ooze items as well, but my favorite is an Ooze Farm as an example of a Garden of Wonder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Themetricsystem wrote:

ANOTHER problem in addition to the very valid one Xethik mentioned above but entirely different.

Bombs that an Alchemist creates are made by spending Reagents that you regain during daily preparations which just so happens to be the exact same time that you would need to Invest in the Bandolier which, if you're using Bombs that are Consumable and need to be re-prepared every day. Since you only actually acquire functional Bombs from Reagents once you fully complete your prep there is no timing window in which your Reagent created Bombs can be placed into the Bandolier so they can be attuned to the newly re-Invested item.

Until you complete the full hour of daily prep neither the Investment nor the Regents + created Alchemical Items can be resolved given that there is not incremental function on that system whereby during the prep you do X, then Y, the Z, instead you do all of it and then ALL of the results trigger as soon as you complete the daily preparations.

I don't think you need to invest at daily preparation unless I missed text on the bandolier itself. While you can carry over investments at daily preparation, you can just let your investment end, make your bombs and slap them onto the bandolier, and then invest into the bandolier (which probably only takes a few actions or minutes).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You could argue that a Fearsome Rune does lower damage by opportunity cost of having a damage-increasing rune in its place, but it's more complicated than that, really. In the end, the question to me is if it is healthy to add a required item like the Thrower's Bandolier for bombs to "work optimally" (and you could argue that throwing weapons had this problem with the returning rune before).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Thrower's Bandolier was previewed in the blog today. And a couple other items (one already shown in the KoLC preview).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

All the throwing weapons. I was expecting to need a greater version for property runes but happy to be wrong.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
keftiu wrote:

I'm excited to swing a Falcata around, especially on something like a Magus or Thaumaturge.

Did anyone spot the Klar anywhere? It's supposed to be in alongside the Earthreaker, but I didn't see it.

It is under shield. It is a +1 AC shield with a versatile S shield spike. There might be some additional upsides with integrated trait but that isn't revealed yet. There is a specific magic shield klar that is pretty neat - it repairs itself from nearby bleeding as a free action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
M4R-T3N wrote:


The second is one that has slipped through the cracks since the first printing and that is in the Glossidex, page 630, and actually has caused significant confustion in the community. It is under the Criticals heading. Here it says that a critical failure is 10 less than the DC. This contradicts pages 10 and 445 where a critical failure is described as failing by 10 or more. If a failure starts at 1 under the DC, so a critical failure should be 11 lower than the DC.

I believe that the Glossidex is correct and the intention is that a roll of a 15 is a critical failure for a DC 25. The reason the text hasn't been changed on page 630 is because that is the correct ruling, and page 10 and 445 are simply describing the same with somewhat ambiguous wording.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cordell Kintner wrote:
Treasure Vault is right around the corner, and I'm sure they will put new feats or rules in that will expand access to weapons. After all, it would suck if old classes couldn't use all those shiny new weapons now would it?

While that would be nice, we haven't seen anything (yet) to imply that will be the case. We can hope, but it seems very optimistic to me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

And that NoNat1s stream is up, covering the alchemical items. You can scrub through the video and check out some really exciting items yourself.

NoNat1s Treasure Vault stream


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gortle wrote:
Atalius wrote:
Ugh, ya I think AOO is just too good (despite only being an animal instinct barbarian who doesn't hit incredibly hard) to give up for Animal Skin. I don't see a place for it, the AC bonus is nice for sure especially for a frontline wrestler, but it would have to replace either AOO at level 6, or Furious Bully at level 8, and I just don't think it's better than either one of those. It may be something I can afford to take at level 10 though certainly.

This is one of my concerns. There are some good alternatives to AoO. Like Embrace the Pain but it is very high level. Cleave could have been but the wording kills it.

I'd really like to see these addressed so that non Fighter Martial characters have a choice of other reactions and don't feel that they need to get AoO all the time.

Yes, you definitely want a reaction that is (fairly) reliable. For my wrestler dragon barbarian, that's Shield Block for now and Embrace in the later levels. I'll definitely regret not having AoO here and there, but at least I'll have something to do off-turn. If you are going Animal Skin and prioritizing AC anyway, grabbing Shield Block is solid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If I understand the question, Perpetual Breadth grants you the ability to add one (or two if you select your own research field) item to your Perpetual Infusions, and then repeating with Perpetual Potency and Perpetual Perfection.

I don't believe Perpetual Infusion changed how many you know with the fourth errata.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gortle wrote:
Xethik wrote:
Atalius wrote:

Gortle, I wanted to ask what would be a good starting stat array for a barbarian Animal instinct Wrestler, would it be:

Str 18
Dex 14
Con 16
Int 8
Wis 12
Cha 8

Or would you swap Wis with Dex and get yourself 14 Wis?

Starting with a 14 Dex so that you are Animal Skin AC capped at level 6 sounds good to me, personally. And you still might want to continue boosting Dex beyond that to help cover pre-rage AC and Reflex saves.

This seems like a good array of you aren't planning on taking Raging Intimidation.
I think you can drop it lower if you want to, Dex to 12 for Brestplate. Animal Skin is totally optional now isn't it?

You get that theoretical AC bump from being expert in unarmored before at level 6, but it puts pressure on your stats to have 16 Dex by then. Then, when armor proficiency catches up, you get that +1 bump to the base item bonus.

In the end, you are +2 to AC over armored at levels 6 - 12, and then +1 over at 13+. Even if you start with Dex 12, Animal Skin can be worth it at level 6 but it is costing you a feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Atalius wrote:

Gortle, I wanted to ask what would be a good starting stat array for a barbarian Animal instinct Wrestler, would it be:

Str 18
Dex 14
Con 16
Int 8
Wis 12
Cha 8

Or would you swap Wis with Dex and get yourself 14 Wis?

Starting with a 14 Dex so that you are Animal Skin AC capped at level 6 sounds good to me, personally. And you still might want to continue boosting Dex beyond that to help cover pre-rage AC and Reflex saves.

This seems like a good array of you aren't planning on taking Raging Intimidation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ched Greyfell wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Ched Greyfell wrote:
I can't get it to work. Each time I download it, it unzips to a file that is 0 bytes big.
What are you trying to download?
The updated Core Rulebook PDF.

It has been property updated as of just over an hour ago; I would try again.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Overall, I like these changes. Flickmace got revised, but it is still a strong and worthwhile weapon. Warpriests get a better chance of hitting things, which my goodness they needed. Alternate ability boosts mean that I can make a bashy gnome fighter -- something I was considering doing anyway, but now they can be even bashier!

I'd like your team to make another pass on Alchemist sometime. They excel in flexibility but my gosh, they still need a bit more power.

When you get back to the errata for the Advanced Class Guide, can you give more oomph to the witch? More cantrip hexes and basic lessons with leveling? This would put them on par with other casters.

BTW, I am loving that this errata doesn't just nerf overpowered options, but also gave love to previously underpowered ones, and gave a boost to options to every ancestry in the game.

Woot for dwarven bards!

Hmm

Well I think for most Warpriests, this was a non-change. But it does prevent awkwardness of clerics falling behind on Escaping when compares to every other class in the game, which is good.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
breithauptclan wrote:
Xethik wrote:
Well, humans have no other benefits (like the extra language gnomes get, darkvision or low-light vision, keen senses, etc). This used to be made up for potentially by their flexible boosts, but now it's really just their feats and heritages.

There are also other balancing factors for the ancestries that I am seeing.

Elves get +5 foot speed and low-light vision, but are also at -2 HP.
Gnomes get two specific languages and low-light vision, but are size small
Dwarves get darkvision, clan dagger, and +2 HP, but are at -5 foot speed.
And so on.

Sure - but once you look at Uncommon there are "strict upgrades" ignoring heritages and feats once more, like Orcs with extra HP and darkvision. Again, it's a false equivalence due to ancestry feats and heritage options, and humans are also more flexible with languages.

But this argument was already a bit faulty when you were already going to boost something like Strength on a human character and compare to the orc.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
breithauptclan wrote:
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
Pathfinder 2 is usually really good about avoiding "context-based balance" (balancing one underpowed mechanic with an overpowered mechanic over there).
The +2/+2 that Humans have isn't underpowered though. It is literally the same powered as all of the other ancestries now.

Well, humans have no other benefits (like the extra language gnomes get, darkvision or low-light vision, keen senses, etc). This used to be made up for potentially by their flexible boosts, but now it's really just their feats and heritages.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There is a confirmed blog post on the topic of issuing errata and FAQs in the new year.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The art is really phenomenal.
If I had to guess, it would be somehow tied with the Lake of Mists and Veils, but I'm not aware of any undead-filled ruins there. Likely related to the description line "push through monster-filled ruins", but it may be something entirely new!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I can't believe this book is only two months out now - very excited to see what this brings to the play table!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
JiCi wrote:

I skimmed through it, but couldn't find anything...

Are there ways to expand the number of cantrips a magus can cast per day? I've seen the Cantrip Expansion feat (+2), but I don't think you can selct that feat more than once.

By cast per day, you mean prepare, yes? Cantrips are not expended when cast, meaning they are at will each day.

Archetypes like the Wizard dedication can get you more, as well as a familiar ability for one. Ancestry heritages and feats can often add more as well, but they are often Charisma based in that case.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Clearly foxes are weak to soured grapes.
I think fighting foxes in tactical combat is a silly scenario. I can't imagine wearing armor and swiping at them with a hatchet - regardless of fence applications - not being somewhat absurd if you thought about it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
breithauptclan wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
I'd be interested in a Tiny sized ancestry character that transforms into large+ forms as a primary means of combat.

An Eidolon can do that fairly easily with Miniaturize and Hulking Size. Both can be gotten by level 10.

Getting an actual character able to do that normally is a bit harder. At least not without spending spell slots for the trick. A Sprite Druid(Wild) maybe?

Does a Giant Instinct tiny ancestry not count? Giant's Stature comes online at level 6 iirc and works even at tiny or small.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fumarole wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:


- runs extremely fast, 6-8 combats in a session with room for lots of RP.
god I want your players. The moment we hit combat I know that's going to be the last thing we do that session, even if it's the first thing we do that session.
Right?! I don't think any 5e session I've played in has had more than two combats in a session, and we've had entire sessions taken up with a single combat. And our sessions last six hours. One memorable session was entirely combat, lasted the full six hours and I had four turns - that means I did something every ninety minutes on average.

This sounds like my experience as well, to the point where I had sent the 6-8 combats a session quote to some friends as a tongue-in-cheek reference to our games. I'm not entirely certain, but I have felt that PF2 combats have actually been faster than 5e for me once players get a hang of the system. Not to say I didn't have combats that filled entire sessions (or multiple even) in PF2, just that at least there were more rounds in the encounter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Secrets of Magic sequel: Secrets of Crafting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ed Reppert wrote:
What is a "profanity proxy"?

W 0 rking around the profanity filter like that, usually.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Atalius wrote:
I have created a sorcerer who has lots of third action options and is quite solid. However, I am running into an issue with a reliable reaction? Anyone have any ideas what I can use for a reaction?

Depending on what tradition you are, there are some powerful spells like Lose the Path. Otherwise, one that comes up fairly often in advice threads is a third action + reaction for Aid.